Obama weighing executive action on guns

WASHINGTON (AP) - Facing powerful opposition to sweeping gun regulations, President Barack Obama is weighing 19 steps that could be taken through executive action alone, congressional officials said.
Those steps could include ordering stricter action against people who lie on gun sale background checks, striking limits on federal research into gun use, ordering tougher penalties against gun trafficking, and giving schools flexibility to use grant money to improve safety.
Obama is expected to unveil his proposals as early as Wednesday, barely over a month since the massacre of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., thrust the gun issue into the national spotlight after years of inaction by Obama and lawmakers.
At the same time Obama is vowing not to back off his support for sweeping gun legislation that would require congressional backing - including banning assault weapons, limiting the capacity of ammunition magazines and instituting universal background checks - despite opposition from the influential gun lobby.
"Will all of them get through this Congress? I don't know," Obama said at a news conference Monday.
"My starting point is not to worry about the politics," he said. "My starting point is to focus on what makes sense, what works."
The president said he would unveil a comprehensive roadmap for curbing gun violence within days. His plan will be based on recommendations from Vice President Joe Biden's gun task force and is expected to include both legislative proposals and steps Obama can implement by himself, using his presidential powers.
White House officials believe moving swiftly on gun proposals at a national level, before the shock over the Newtown shooting fades, gives Obama the best chance to get his proposals through Congress.
Officials said Obama and Biden met Monday afternoon to discuss the vice president's recommendations. Ahead of that meeting, Biden huddled with a dozen House Democrats who have formed their own gun violence task force and whose political muscle will be needed to push legislation through Congress.
Biden told those lawmakers that he and his staff had identified 19 steps Obama could take without help from Congress, according to Jenny Werwa, communications director to Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., one of those present. Biden didn't indicate which of those Obama would adopt.
Among other steps, advocacy groups have been pushing Obama to order the Justice Department to crack down on those who lie on background checks; only a tiny number are now prosecuted. Such a step has support from the National Rifle Association, which has consistently argued that existing laws must be enforced before new ones are considered.
Obama also could take steps ordering federal agencies to make more data on gun crimes available and conduct more research on the issue, something Republican congressional majorities have limited through language in budget bills, advocates said.
The president's proposals are also expected to include steps for improving school safety and mental health care, as well as recommendations for addressing violence in entertainment and video games.
A Democratic lawmaker who met with Biden on Monday said the vice president was likely to have given Obama proposals for allowing schools flexibility in spending federal grant money so they could take steps toward safety, including hiring school resource officers, instituting mental health intervention or making repairs like putting locks on doors. Grants could also go to communities to institute programs to get guns away from people who shouldn't have them, said the lawmaker, adding these were steps the president could take without Congress.
The lawmaker spoke on condition of anonymity because the proposals hadn't been announced publicly.
But the most sweeping and contentious elements - including an assault weapons ban - will require approval from Congress. The NRA has vowed to fight any measure that would limit access to guns and ammunition, a hardline position that could sway some Republicans and conservative Democrats.
The assault weapons ban, which Obama has long supported, is expected to face the toughest road on Capitol Hill. Congress passed a 10-year ban on the high-grade, military-style weapons in 1994, but supporters didn't have the votes to renew it once it expired.
Obama will also need congressional help to limit high-capacity ammunition magazines, like the ones used by the Newtown shooter, and to require background checks for anyone seeking to purchase a gun. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said some 40 percent of gun sales happen with no background checks, such as at gun shows and by private sellers over the Internet or through classified ads.
Parents of the slain Connecticut children added their voices to the national dialogue Monday. Members of the newly formed group Sandy Hook Promise called for an open-minded discussion about a range of issues, including guns. And lawmakers in New York state pressed ahead with what would be the nation's first gun control measure approved since the school shootings.
Those steps could include ordering stricter action against people who lie on gun sale background checks, striking limits on federal research into gun use, ordering tougher penalties against gun trafficking, and giving schools flexibility to use grant money to improve safety.
Obama is expected to unveil his proposals as early as Wednesday, barely over a month since the massacre of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., thrust the gun issue into the national spotlight after years of inaction by Obama and lawmakers.
At the same time Obama is vowing not to back off his support for sweeping gun legislation that would require congressional backing - including banning assault weapons, limiting the capacity of ammunition magazines and instituting universal background checks - despite opposition from the influential gun lobby.
"Will all of them get through this Congress? I don't know," Obama said at a news conference Monday.
"My starting point is not to worry about the politics," he said. "My starting point is to focus on what makes sense, what works."
The president said he would unveil a comprehensive roadmap for curbing gun violence within days. His plan will be based on recommendations from Vice President Joe Biden's gun task force and is expected to include both legislative proposals and steps Obama can implement by himself, using his presidential powers.
White House officials believe moving swiftly on gun proposals at a national level, before the shock over the Newtown shooting fades, gives Obama the best chance to get his proposals through Congress.
Officials said Obama and Biden met Monday afternoon to discuss the vice president's recommendations. Ahead of that meeting, Biden huddled with a dozen House Democrats who have formed their own gun violence task force and whose political muscle will be needed to push legislation through Congress.
Biden told those lawmakers that he and his staff had identified 19 steps Obama could take without help from Congress, according to Jenny Werwa, communications director to Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., one of those present. Biden didn't indicate which of those Obama would adopt.
Among other steps, advocacy groups have been pushing Obama to order the Justice Department to crack down on those who lie on background checks; only a tiny number are now prosecuted. Such a step has support from the National Rifle Association, which has consistently argued that existing laws must be enforced before new ones are considered.
Obama also could take steps ordering federal agencies to make more data on gun crimes available and conduct more research on the issue, something Republican congressional majorities have limited through language in budget bills, advocates said.
The president's proposals are also expected to include steps for improving school safety and mental health care, as well as recommendations for addressing violence in entertainment and video games.
A Democratic lawmaker who met with Biden on Monday said the vice president was likely to have given Obama proposals for allowing schools flexibility in spending federal grant money so they could take steps toward safety, including hiring school resource officers, instituting mental health intervention or making repairs like putting locks on doors. Grants could also go to communities to institute programs to get guns away from people who shouldn't have them, said the lawmaker, adding these were steps the president could take without Congress.
The lawmaker spoke on condition of anonymity because the proposals hadn't been announced publicly.
But the most sweeping and contentious elements - including an assault weapons ban - will require approval from Congress. The NRA has vowed to fight any measure that would limit access to guns and ammunition, a hardline position that could sway some Republicans and conservative Democrats.
The assault weapons ban, which Obama has long supported, is expected to face the toughest road on Capitol Hill. Congress passed a 10-year ban on the high-grade, military-style weapons in 1994, but supporters didn't have the votes to renew it once it expired.
Obama will also need congressional help to limit high-capacity ammunition magazines, like the ones used by the Newtown shooter, and to require background checks for anyone seeking to purchase a gun. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said some 40 percent of gun sales happen with no background checks, such as at gun shows and by private sellers over the Internet or through classified ads.
Parents of the slain Connecticut children added their voices to the national dialogue Monday. Members of the newly formed group Sandy Hook Promise called for an open-minded discussion about a range of issues, including guns. And lawmakers in New York state pressed ahead with what would be the nation's first gun control measure approved since the school shootings.
Dear God! Doesn't this President realize how many people will rise up against him if he tries to gut the Bill of Rights? This President is on the edge of starting a war between those who rule, and those who cherish freedom. He is about to start a Civil War!
 @None please. Start your little revolution. Go ahead. I dare you.
I say if "Der Fuhrer" violates even more of the Constitution by restricting gun ownership, there should be a mass movement of secceeding from the Union.
Those who want to remain part of this socialist dictatorship can stay, and then the REAL Americans can secceed.
 @NuclearianÂ
The thing is, you people keep threatening to leave, but you never do.Â
so here...
Â
Dear Red States:
We're ticked off at your Neanderthal attitudes and politics and we'vedecided we're leaving.Â
We in New York intend to form our own country and we're taking the otherBlue States with us.In case you aren't aware that includes California, Hawaii, Oregon,Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and the rest of theNortheast.We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation and especially tothe people of the new country of The Enlightened States of America(E.S.A).
To sum up briefly:You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states.
Â
We get stem cell research and the best beaches.
We get Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
You get Scott Desjarlais and ToddAkin.
We get the Statue of Liberty.
You get OpryLand.
We get Intel and Microsoft.
You get WorldCom.
We get Harvard (Princeton, Penn, Haverford, Colgate, U of R),.
You getOle' Miss.
We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs.
You get Alabama.
We get two-thirds of the tax revenue.
 You get to make the red states pay their fair share.
Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the ChristianCoalition's, we get a bunch of happy families.
 You get a bunch of singlemoms.
With the Blue States in hand we will have firm control of 80% of thecountry's fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce, 92%of the nation's fresh fruit, 95% of America's quality wines (you canserve French wines at state dinners) 90% of all cheese, 90 percent ofthe high tech industry, most of the US low sulfur coal, all livingredwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schoolsplus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.
Â
With the Red States you will have to cope with 88% of all obeseAmericans and their projected health care costs, 92% of all USmosquitoes, nearly 100% of the tornadoes, 90% of the hurricanes, 99% of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100% of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.
We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.
38% of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62% believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the deathpenalty or gun laws, 44% say that evolution is only a theory, 53% that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61% of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties.
Â
We're taking the good weed too. You can have that crap they grow in Mexico.
Â
Sincerely,Citizens of the Enlightened (Blue) States of America
 @T H I S Amazing. We will take the Red States. At least we have the ability to think and make decisions for ourselves. You BLUE pukes cant do anything unless the government tells you to do it. Stay STUPID, while we improve.
 @T H I S  @Nuclearian Wow, this is some of the funniest short sighted drivel ever. You know this list purposely lists a bunch of stuff that you think is great for you and bad for "the red states".
It lists "We get Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren." as good. Funny. But whatever. It would be so easy to tear this worthless list to pieces I'll let any 12 year old with the time do so.
@Nuclearian I would be interested in knowing what parts of our constitution has been violated already?
 @justmyopinion  @Nuclearian Um, its called the SECOND amendment.
 @justmyopinion How about sayng the Constitution guarentees the right of women to murder their children through abortions. Using the "Privacy" word? No rights to privacy in the Constitution.
Â
And AGE has nothing to do with it. After all, there are people that actually thing the 2nd Amendment "militia" actually means just Police or Military.
 @Nuclearian How old are you? Twelve? My question to you was "what parts of our constitution has been violated already" since, up to this point, Pres. Obama has made almost no laws that have anything to do with the 2nd amendment, I was just trying to find out what you were talking about when you say he "violates even more of the constitution". That means, what did he violate already, because you said even more.. get it now?
Where does this idiot get off on speaking against gun violence? He wants to disarm law abiding Americans, "to reduce gun violence", but arms mexican cartels? Such a GD hypocrite. Think its time for a new American Revolution, when this idiot decides to screw the constitution. How much is a person moronic to think that a criminal would obey new gun laws?
Â
To you people that put "Der Fuhrer" back in office. Do you feel DUMB now?
 @Nuclearian Us people who put our President back into office are very pleased he is addressing the issue of violence in our country.Â
 @Darn it! By punishing those who DON'T do the violence. You want to disarm the law abiding citizens, and let the criminals be armed? You are pathetic. Obviously have nothing but hatred for your "loved" ones.
 @Darn it!  @Nuclearian By banning a type of weapon that accounts for a fraction of total gun homicides? He's a real go getter!
 @Darn it! Pleased that guns will be taken away from people who wish to defend themselves against people who would harm us? Making ownership of weapons ILLEGAL would jsut put us at the mercy of criminals who care less about "gun laws".
 @T H I S Nah. Just fascist lovers like you.
 @T H I S Lots of time. I am in the military, fool.
Â
Just kidding though. better to be able to have it when needed, then be at the mercy of the criminal, with the gun, in MY house.
But your deluded soul will be a believer if it ever happened to you.
 @T H I S Trouble does not make an appointment.
 @Darn it! Dream on. The realities of life just don't match your little view of utopia.
 @T H I S  @Nuclearian I have used mine at least 3 times that I am aware of. Once to scare off an urban predator and twice against a forest predator, that were not scared off by my presence or the two warning shots. Although I am not sure how using my gun to defend myself has anything to do with regulations and banning.
 @Nuclearian OK, how many times have you used your gun to defend yourself?
Â
You're scared of the bogey man. Â
Â
 @Nuclearian Pleased that it will be more difficult for those who would harm you may have a harder time obtaining a gun. Pleased that maybe irresponsible gun owners will think twice before leaving a gun within reach of a child.Â
Changing the gun trafficking law would help. Currently, if you provide a gun (by selling or other means) to someone who does not have the right to possess a gun, you are only liable if you are aware of this status. One proposed change would be to make you liable even if you did not know, creating an incentive for all gun sellers to conduct background checks.
Want to reduce the number of firearms deaths in this country? How about a common-sense solution: End the war on drugs.
Let's see... executive orders and signing statements - obama good; bush bad.Â
 @GeorgeG. Executive orders and signing statements are not the same thing.
Â
Bush was particularly criticized for his use of signing statements because they basically amounted to a promise to interpret the law however he felt like.
Â
Executive orders have been used by presidents of both parties, both controversially and non-controversially. It all depends on whether they are seen to be in accordance with either laws or the Constitution.
 @Sutekh  @GeorgeG. I'm pretty sure that GeorgeG means that the left screamed when Bush did either one of those things, but applaud Obama when he does them. I.e., it always just politics and demonizing your enemies for the left, not that there is anything intrinsically wrong with them when they complained about Bush doing it.
See. Anti gun people think the loons are afraid of government tyranny or what have you. They think it's not possible, because the president will never go on tv and say "I run ish now. Election are cancelled".
Â
That's not how it works. It usually start by a catastrophic even + major civil unrest. Government steps in to control the food/equipment supply chain because there won't be enough to go around. They feed their people first. In the meantime, normal people get desperate & do what they have to, and you in turn, do what you have to.
Â
I would normally say that the military would not go along with orders to squash the citizens, but when it's between the soldier's family getting fed, or being in the streets like the rest of them, I'm sure they'll still have a large enough force to do their thing.
Â
/rant
/taking care of myself and sleeping well at night
/cross that bridge when we get there
/rather not wait for FEMA
Â
 @Romey_Rome That's not what the hippies said in the 1960s. They were convinced the establishment was after them.
 @GeorgeG. I don't  know. Wasn't around then. But I do vaguely remember Black Friday style lines for bread in USSR.
Â
I Don't think establishment is after anyone in the sense you're thinking. But if something causes civil unrest, and thing go bad, I don't doubt you'll be the least of the government's worries.Â
Gun control I would support. Unlawful possession of a hand gun 20 years in prison, using a gun in a crime, 35 years in prison minimum with no parole. Firing a gun in commission of a crime 50 year minimum. None of this hug a thug bull because the person is only 16.
 @4ShotLatte Illegal possession of an unlawful 30-round magazine, a year and a thousand dollar fine... unless you are a major TV personality seen waving one around on TV, and are connected to the local DA.... (i.e., David Gregory)
Â
Nah, I'm not so fond of simple possession charges, because they are too easy to abuse.
 @RN1  @4ShotLatte Um, which 30-round magazines are unlawful?
 @justmyopinion Irrational to ask that the law be applied equally, when others, who are not media personalities, and also have no evil intent, ARE prosecuted for mere possession? It means we are not a nation of laws, where a person can know ahead of time what they can and cannot do. It means the media is free to push for any legislation they want,because they know any undesirable side-effects won't apply to *them*. Same for politicians.They can think they are above the law, because it will not hold them accountable because of their connections. People are a lot less careless in what they ask for if they know it will hit THEM in a bad way. How many would look to ban guns if they ALSO knew that they could never hire armed security guards? Double standards lead directly to class contempt.
 @justmyopinion  @RN1 Because he's above the law?  Why not prosecute the criminals when they violate the law?  It is against the law for him to possess that magazine.  Period. Â
 @RN1 I'm sure the country has a lot to gain by spending the money to put  David Gregory in jail. You are really getting irrational.
 @HeesBonafide  @4ShotLatte Violation of DC law. Just picking the first one to show up, not any particularly news story:Â
http://www.liberalroundup.com/politics/mediaite/234161-nbc%E2%80%99s-david-gregory-displays-30-round-magazine-on-tv-matter-is-%E2%80%98under-investigation%E2%80%99-by-police
Â
If the link fails, search on "David Gregory 30-round magazine display" (without the quotes)
Â
Charges were not filed, and of course that is unrelated to the DA being friends with his wife, I'm sure....
 @4ShotLatte Too bad criminals only get 1 year for murder around here. a la Tuba Man killer.
I do believe we need to control guns. NOT outlaw them. We have to have strict penalties for those caught trafficing in guns. We need to have strict penalties for felons caught with guns. We need to make harder to get the first gun and have to go through a background check for future purchases. Just because you are a law abiding citizen with the first prchase doesn't mean you still are years later. We need to spend as much money on mental health care as we do on gun control. My heart broke for those innocent children at Sandy Hook but gun control would not have saved them, mental health care for the shooter may have. We have too many people killed in this country by ticked off people who get a gun. Before we can fix anything we have to relearn how to respect each other and to respect life. We need to quit being a selfish society. Read some of the comments here and see that if a person doesn't agree with someone else they are called names. In this country we have the second ammendment which gives us the right to bear arms but we also have the feedom of speech. I may not agree with every comment on here but I won't call names I just agree to disagree.
 @taxpro So, how exactly do you propose to punish people who *plan* on killing a bunch of people in a huge display of "LOOK AT ME" then commit "suicide by cop" at the end of it?
 @RN1  @taxpro I'm anti killing personally. Ultimate punishment is living out the rest of your life wishing you were dead. Like cut off all limbs. Feed them through a tube and hose them off every 2 weeks.
 @Romey_Rome  @taxpro I'd be fine with that, but you can't do that if they off themselves like the coward of Sandy Hook (and too many others) did. My question was rhetorical - How do you punish the dead? You can't (obviously), but you CAN stop them while they are still living, such as by shooting them and reducing their blood pressure to zero.
 @taxpro Guns are already controlled. I cannot have full automatic without federal permit. Even with federal permit I cannot have a tank, howitzer, bazooka, grenade launcher, hand grenades etc....there are plenty of laws already that we abide by.
 @MonroeMad  @taxpro You can own a tank. http://www.armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm Shhh. Don't tell anyone.Â
 @Romey_Rome  @MonroeMad  @taxpro EEK!!! Ban them! Ban them!
In the 1990s while Bill Clinton was in office 500,000 were massacred in Rwanda by machete. I'll bet those dead wished they had guns.
 @MonroeMad Is your post intended to support gun ownership? If so, how?
Â
What makes you think that if the Tutsis had guns, the Hutus wouldn't have guns also?
 @Sutekh  @MonroeMad Lets say they both did. Disarmed, a mob of people rules, but armed mobs are easy to shoot by the targeted individuals, and thus are dangerous *to the mob* to make so many targets available. So, if everyone was armed with guns, mob violence would actually be much harder than if everyone just has machetes.
85% of children in the world killed by guns are American children. Â That's an abysmal number and should be a source of embarrassment to all of us. Â It certainly is to me. Â That alone is reason enough to take on the NRA and all those who so steadfastly refuse to bring sanity to gun ownership.
 @Cetus So why is it that a child killed by a gun is more tragic than a child killed by a knife, or a swimming pool, or malnutrition, or dehydration, or a preventable disease, or government action, or whatever?
@Cetus 92.3523% of all statistics are made up. Do you have a credible source for this information or are you parroting what you heard elsewhere?
 @Cetus Might want to double check that statement. It's not true.
Â
http://themoderatevoice.com/173136/meme-busting-do-85-of-the-children-who-die-from-gun-violence-live-in-the-us/
Â
 @Cetus And %95 of all statistics can be manipulated by %20 of the pollers to say whatever they want %50 of the time. I read Drugs are the leading killers of kids, Drunk Drivers are, and abuse in the home. Whatever agenda is being pushed, they find a way to say that.
@Cetus -- I am far too busy (and lazy) today to research your claim. Why don't your support what you've said with some cites, otherwise, this is just your opinion and has no merit.
 @Cetus If you are truly interested in stopping the killing then you should support the laws that would actually work. Things like no gun zones and failed bans are proven to be ineffective. How about we rework the mental health laws etc and do some real good?
 @Cetus This is not true. Thousands of children are killed each year by guns in Africa and also Mexico where they are banned. So if Mexico has banned guns and still have massive murders, what conclusion would even an imbecile draw?
 @MonroeMad that there is a lot of violence in a country with rapant corruption and a severe drug war?
Â
here, http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/50cf5c5eecad049f7a000004-1785-1483-590-/deaths-vs-guns.png
Â
 @aintno1special  @T H I S  @MonroeMad No no no! You can't research the cause and effect BEHIND the numbers! You are supposed to take the numbers at face value and come to the conclusion that GUNS R BAD!!!!! Just accept what you are told, subject!
 @T H I S  @MonroeMad *is that
 @T H I S  @MonroeMad What I get from your link in that the US has more than twice as many guns/one hundred people compared to Canada, but less than half as many deaths related to guns/ one hundred thousand people. Doesn't really support the logic that more guns is bad.
Guns are resticted in Canada, I would be interested to find out what their gun death statistics are.
 @NWFreeman OK subtract them. Go ahead. Itemize them and subtract them.Â
I am betting that conversation is not going to help your argument. If it would, then you would bring data to the table.
Â
 @T H I S  @taxpro Gun homicide statistics include lawful, righteous shoots as well as criminal murders.  Subtract those righteous shoots and then lets talk again.
Â
 @taxpro D'ho! I meant to say "the SEATTLE white-on-white murder rate is lower than Vancouver", but the black-on-black is much higher....
 @taxpro Canada has about .5 gun homicides per 100,000 people. The US has 3.7 per 100,000
 @taxpro Well, according to the Kellerman study comparing Seattle and Vancouver BC, their white-on-white murder rate is slightly lower than ours, but our minority murder rate (our is black-on-black, theirs mostly Asian-on-Asian) is MUCH higher, so much higher than theirs that our overall average looks bad in comparison. Other studies have given similar results. It's not a gun thing, it's a crime and culture thing.
 @MonroeMad  @Cetus What about all the children NOT killed by guns? Do you not care about them? Because I can tell you, it is a MUCH larger number than those killed by guns. No, you are incredibly biased against guns, so it colors every argument you make.